and Louis Collins
David Seymour starts to drive a Land Rover up the steps of Parliament, in a screenshot from the ACT Party's video of the event. Photo: Screenshot / Act Party
David Seymour's recent off-road parliamentary excursion led to a reprimand from the Speaker, who also said the rules didn't apply to this instance. What are the rules?
While reprimanding ACT leader David Seymour for mounting Parliament's steps in a Land Rover, the Speaker Gerry Brownlee described Parliament as "one of the most open and accessible in the world." He added that he hopes that will continue.
That final note was surely a warning to MPs not to force him to make further rules or tighten security at Parliament through their actions.
Gerry Brownlee recently tightened access to the Debating Chamber's public gallery after an environmental protest where visitors unfurled vertical banners. Among the subsequent changes, gallery visitors' details will now be collected before admittance is allowed.
Taking advantage of an accessible Parliament
Tourists visiting New Zealand's Parliament are often surprised by the ability to enter and tour the buildings. Many remark that their own parliaments are much more restrictive. Parliament's lawn is a popular lunch spot, a playground, and a venue for protest.
But access rules have slowly been tightening and protesters are only one of the reasons. MPs have caused their own security threats as well. Most recently, on Monday, ACT Leader David Seymour got behind the wheel of a 1948 Land Rover and began mounting Parliament's front steps before being stopped by a Parliament security officer.
The vehicle was present for a fund-raising event for Manaaki Manawa (The Centre for Heart Research), and had been granted access to the forecourt for a photo op. Seymour seemed to interpret this access as being inclusive of the building's main steps. Others have suggested that he was explicitly denied permission. While Seymour has suggested that he has the right as an MP, the Speaker disabused him of that notion, saying "they do not".
Is there a 'no driving up the steps' rule?
The management of Parliament's grounds falls within the responsibilities of the Speaker, who is the 'occupier' and landlord.
There is a list of expectations relating to the use of Parliament's grounds, but many of these are in regard to the conduct of people involved in either protests or demonstrations. Unlike a protest, a demonstration is often showing support for a cause or idea - Monday's fundraiser arguably falls under the latter category.
Members of Parliament participating in demonstrations are subject to the same rules as the public. Within those set of rules are the following:
- "Participants must not mount the main steps nor interfere with the use of Parliament Buildings by those entering or leaving it in the normal course of their business."
- "No vehicles may be brought on to the grounds as part of a demonstration."
A member of the public breaking these rules would most likely be trespassed, and so prevented from returning. That solution couldn't really be enforced on an MP, which leaves these rules slightly toothless.
The Speaker Gerry Brownlee in the House. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith
Standing Orders and Parliamentary Privilege
Given the stunt attracted a lot of attention, The Speaker didn't have much choice but to make a ruling on the matter when the House sat on Tuesday.
"Honourable members, on Monday the Hon. David Seymour drove a vehicle on to the steps of Parliament. He stopped when a security officer intervened. I commend that officer for his actions. His long experience in the role would have given him the necessary judgement to deal with the difficult situation. I doubt he would ever have expected to have to tell a member of the House not to drive a vehicle onto the steps of the building, particularly given that it was a repeat of the 2003 event, and in light of the enhanced security arrangements that Parliament has since put in place."
As the Speaker noted, Seymour's joyride is not the first attempt to drive a vehicle up the front steps of Parliament House. Bob Tizard did it with a tractor in 1987, without punishment. This was mimicked in 2003 by National MP Shane Ardern, whose actions were deemed a dangerous enough stunt that there was an abortive police prosecution.
Brownlee went on to say that Parliament's own rules for MPs, the Standing Orders, don't cover this.
"It is clear there are no Standing Orders that could reasonably support a referral to the Privileges Committee. I've expressed to Mr Seymour my strong displeasure in his actions and my concern in his belief that MPs should be able to do what he did is a right; they do not."
Had Seymour decided to drive all the way up the steps, through the doors, and into the chamber while it was sitting, then yes, the chamber and the Standing Orders would have both been breached, but so would numerous laws.
The Code of Conduct
If you drove a Land Rover up the steps of your workplace, at minimum, a meeting with HR about your conduct would probably be expected.
In recent years MPs have also had to abide by a code of conduct. However, that code was written to address problems with the bullying of staff, sexual harassment, inappropriate relationships and so on.
As you might expect, there's nothing there about driving up the steps of Parliament House. Also, that code is primarily enforced at the party level, so that would be the ACT party whip (who reports to David Seymour).
The law
In 2003, Shane Ardern got a lot further up the steps and looked to be a risk to injuring people had the tractor tipped and rolled back down the steps. Despite the involvement of a vehicle, the charge police landed on was of disorderly behaviour - but that was eventually dropped.
If the police were to get involved and Seymour was found guilty, whether dangerous driving or disorderly behaviour (like Ardern), he wouldn't lose his job as an MP. An MP's seat is automatically vacated if they are convicted of a crime carrying a prison sentence potentially exceeding two years. Disorderly behaviour tops out at three months.
Chris Hipkins in the House. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith
The Cabinet manual and ministerial conduct
As a minister, David Seymour is also bound by yet another set of expectations - The Cabinet Manual, which includes a code of conduct for ministers. The expectations specifically relate to ministerial, party political, and also personal actions. Acting in a party leadership or personal capacity is no defence.
The person responsible for ensuring these standards are upheld is the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon. That is why this topic also came up in Question Time on Tuesday, when Labour leader Chris Hipkins asked Luxon whether Seymour had breached those expectations. Here is part of that exchange:
Hipkins: "Does he stand by his comment that David Seymour has not breached the Cabinet Manual given the Cabinet Manual says that Ministers must conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to their office, 'are expected to act lawfully, and are seen to uphold the highest ethical and behavioural standards, including good judgement', given recent revelations that David Seymour intervened in a police murder investigation, referred a sexual abuse survivor to an ACT Party lawyer rather than to the police, and, just yesterday-potentially illegally-attempted to drive a Land Rover up the front steps of Parliament?"
Luxon: "Yes."
Hipkins: "Is he therefore confident that driving a Land Rover up the front steps of Parliament is a lawful activity?"
Luxon: "Ultimately, that's a decision for the Speaker, and he's addressed that today."
The Prime Minister was wrong when he suggested that the Speaker has a role in deciding whether someone has broken the law - he does not. Luxon went on to reject Seymour's earlier actions as relevant, since they were undertaken prior to becoming a minister. The manual specifically includes actions taken as an MP, though it is not clear about when such actions must have occurred.
Ultimately, the interpretation of the Cabinet Manual's expectations for ministers is made by the Cabinet, and particularly by the prime minister. In this case, the prime minister has made it clear that Seymour was not under threat from those rules either.
Luxon is over a barrel here though as disciplining the leader of a coalition partner could spell the end of his whole government.
A sign points towards a polling place on Manners St in central Wellington Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox
The final court
There is one final court that might get involved in an MP's antics - as long as the court's jury has a very long memory - the court of public opinion, as exercised at a general election. The Speaker also alluded to this final potential punishment.
"My own view is that the public will make their own determination about the appropriateness or otherwise of the action, and that's something that all of us can remove ourselves from if we wish but, in the end, the public makes that judgement and is often a lot more harsh than we might be."
The electoral court is the one that MPs likely fear the most, and ironically, its verdicts are decided by the same group of people that MPs are often seeking to impress when they engage in attention-seeking stunts.
Parliament's bible on MP's conduct
The final comment goes to Parliament's manual or bible, Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand edited by the Clerk of the House, David Wilson.
"In the Westminster tradition, the moral and ethical behaviour of members has been governed by informal conventions based on the concept of honour. The underlying assumption has been that members behave honourably in the public interest, and that any who are perceived not to have conformed to expected standards of behaviour may be subject to public opprobrium and, ultimately, electoral retribution. More recently, developments in ethical standards in the United Kingdom, and particularly at Parliament, have been codified in a set of principles of public life. The principles are articulated under headings of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership."
RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
